ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Inter-Formula Variability in IOL Power Planning in Short and Long Eyes: A Retrospective Paired Comparison of Seven ESCRS-Hosted Formulas and the Ladas Super Formula 2.0.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To quantify the frequency, magnitude, and direction of inter-formula planning variability in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation at the extremes of axial length, comparing seven European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ESCRS)-hosted formulas and the Ladas Super Formula 2.0, and to identify preoperative predictors of clinically relevant disagreement. Methods: In this retrospective, single-center, paired within-eye planning study, the recommended IOL power and predicted spherical equivalent were generated for short (axial length <22 mm) and long (>26 mm) eyes from identical biometry (IOLMaster 700) across the seven formulas on three IOL platforms. A clinically relevant discrepancy (ClinRel) was defined as a within-eye range ≥1 step (≥0.5 D) in recommended power or ≥0.25 D in predicted spherical equivalent across the seven formulas. Firth-penalized logistic regression identified predictors in the long stratum. Results: A total of 1020 eyes (551 short, 469 long) of 665 patients were analyzed. On the primary platform, ClinRel occurred in 98.2% of short and 62.7% of long eyes, reproduced on all three platforms and in one-eye-per-patient analyses. Per-formula mean signed differences vs Barrett Universal II were small (-0.11 to +0.16 D), yet the seven formulas diverged by ≥2 steps in 33.8% of short eyes. Hill-RBF 3.0 was out-of-bounds in ~30% of eyes; the Ladas Super Formula 2.0 (n = 311) was not a directional outlier. In long eyes, axial length was the strongest predictor (Firth odds ratio 1.55 per 1 SD; 95% CI 1.23-1.95), with no clean threshold (Youden axial length/corneal radius ratio 3.52; sensitivity 35.5%, specificity 96.0%). Conclusions: Modern IOL power formulas frequently disagree on the recommended power in short and long eyes despite comparable published accuracy. Because postoperative outcomes were not assessed, these findings quantify planning-level variability only; disagreement should alert surgeons to planning uncertainty in these eyes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.